Setting new standards: Nikon D5 Review

Introduction

The Nikon D5 is the company's flagship action-oriented DSLR, sporting a 20.8MP full-frame sensor, 153-point autofocus system and a full-size, double-grip chassis that is both tough as nails and exceedingly comfortable to use. Though the core build of this camera remains very similar to the D4S, the sensor and autofocus system are entirely new and - as we'd expect - designed with speed and reliability in mind.

Nikon D5 Key Specifications

All new Nikon-designed 20.8MP full-frame image sensor

Expeed 5 processor

All new 153-point phase detection autofocus system with 99 cross-sensors

Automated autofocus fine tune

Native ISO range now stretches from 100-102,400

12fps continuous shooting with full autofocus and autoexposure

4K video recording

Offered in dual CF and dual XQD memory card configurations

Touchscreen functionality during both stills and video shooting

CIPA rating of 3,780 shots per charge using the same EN-EL18a battery as D4S

Due to its large size and tip-top placement in Nikon's lineup, the D5 originally struck me as a somewhat intimidating camera to put through a thorough review. But really, with a little bit of work to get it set up the way I like and the development of some muscle memory as to where all the proper buttons are, the D5 has proven to be one of the most reliable, and as such, one of the least stressful cameras I've ever had the pleasure of using. Of course, that doesn't mean that it isn't meant to be put through stressful situations. Quite the opposite.

Here's a quick comparison of the key specs of the D4S, D5 and 1D-X II.

Nikon D4S

Nikon D5

Canon 1D-X II

MSRP

$6499

$6499

$5999

Sensor

16.2MP CMOS

20.8MP CMOS

20.2MP CMOS

ISO range(native)

100-25,600

100-102,400

100-51,200

AF points

51

153

61

RGB metering sensor resolution

91k pixel

180k pixel

360k pixel

LCD

3.2" 920k-dot

3.2" 2.36M-dot touch-enabled

3.2" 1.62M-dot touch-enabled

Burst rate

11 fps

12 fps

14 fps

Video

1080/60p

4K/30p

4K/60p

Battery life (CIPA)

3020 shots

3780 shots

1210 shots

Dimensions

160 x 157 x 91mm

160 x 159 x 92mm

158 x 168 x 83mm

Weight

1350 g

1405 g (XQD)

1530 g

Clearly, there are some exciting innovations hidden beneath the D5's skin, but in the end, it's likely not the most exciting camera to the average consumer. So in an age of decreasing camera sales, why does Nikon bother to continue producing such machines? Well, in the most extreme of situations, phones and lesser digital cameras will simply be unable to capture the same sorts of moments that flagship cameras like the D5 are, from the get-go, built to capture.

2016 is an Olympic year, and it's not a coincidence that this year has seen new flagship DSLRs from from both Canon and Nikon.

Here is the beef

There's no denying that the Nikon D5 is one beefy camera. Without a lens, it weighs 1405g, or just over three pounds. But there's a good reason for that. The D5 is over-engineered on purpose - it's built to take a knock, a drop or a flying rock kicked up from a dirt-bike. It might even take a bullet, but we're not really allowed to test that. And with a properly sealed lens attached, the D5 should also stand up to a downpour and freezing conditions with ease. This camera comes with a tough magnesium-alloy shell, one that feels like you could pound nails with (we didn't try).

The D5's robustness means I can focus more on the action and less on whether or not I'm going to hurt the camera. Processed and cropped to taste in Adobe Camera Raw. Photo by Carey Rose. Nikon AF-S 300mm F4 PF | F4 | 1/2000 sec | ISO 200

Another contributor to the D5's beefiness is its battery. It's CIPA-rated to 3,780 shots, which not only promises an absurd amount of shooting between charges, but is also a sign of increased efficiencies within the camera. Despite more megapixels, a faster burst rate and a more computationally intensive autofocus system, the rating has increased compared to its predecessor, which uses the same battery pack. (Fun fact: to save you the trouble of opening your calculator app, the CIPA rating of 3,780 shots actually only translates to five minutes and fifteen seconds of shooting at its burst rate of 12fps.)

The Evolution

I'm a long-time Nikon shooter, but not one that's personally invested in pro-level bodies from the Dx series. At first, if you've used even a semi-pro body from Nikon's recent past, you'll feel familiar with the D5. But when you get more familiar with the camera (and as we cover in detail on our 'Body & Design' page), Nikon's made some changes to the button layout of the D5 that will have some users scratching their heads, and others praising the ergonomic improvements from the added level of button customization.

In summary, the D5 is a camera that will be lusted over by a lot of enthusiasts, but largely abused by its intended customer base - working professionals. These photographers will simply pick it up, do their best to re-assign all their buttons the way they had re-assigned them on their D4S's, and get to work. For long-time sports shooters and wedding photographers, a more comprehensive rethink and redesign of cameras like this would probably not go over well.

Instead, the evolving Dx line continually provides meaningful updates that will make it easier for established pros to capture images that they already know how to take. In this vein, the D5 is indeed a worthy upgrade and successor to the D4S for a number of reasons. So without further ado, let's take a closer look to find out why.

While I can accept the use of great subject-tracking AF, other than that I struggle to justify the cost, of both this and the Canon equivalents, because here you are still at 20MP, to get the OK high ISO performance.

I personally find the results visually disappointing relative to what a D800 l puts out. Were the results really noise-free up to 3200 I might say OK, but they are not, no. So to me the trade off in resolution for better high ISO performance fails, as by the time you get to 12800 the results are dreadful. There is also a lack of fine detail resolution and of openness, legibility and integrity about the files that niggles: and this is the camera.

Given that you can buy a new car for the cost of this body without a lens, I do feel Leitz, Nikon and Canon need to expect a drop in sales to individuals who have to pay with their own money AND make £6000 before they can begin to profit from ownership,

"Dear Howard,Thank you for your reply.I sincerely apologise for the inconvenience this may have caused you. We have tested the equipment and can confirm that this is the expected performance with the particular set up. The Auto ISO is not performed for wireless flash-unit photography. It is the limitation of the system.Apologies again for any disappointment,If there's anything else I can possibly assist you with, please let us know.Kind Regards,Marina Davydova"

From a Canon shooter: Files look REALLY good from this one. Almost like a Canon-approach to more punchy colors and tones. I don't know if that is CFA related, image processor or if Adobe sent the Nikon profiles to the gym. Either way, this is good.

Interestingly enough, the latest Canon profiles have become weaker with less vivid colors.

Now that we have cameras as fast as this, photography for me is almost of no interest, these burst rates are virtually video, where is the skill in pointing a camera like this at a moving subject and firing off dozens and dozens of shots and picking one you like? The next stage really will be super hi res video that you freeze and take a still, thats probably already available......boooooooring

Yes but nobody that buys this camera is going to do that are they ?......no skill involved anymore, a complete novice can take great pics, just point and shoot off a few hundred shots, anybody is going to get at least a few keepers , a camera like this is of no interest to me at all, and I predict many in the coming years more and more seasoned photographers will lose intrest too as this technology becomes commonplace

D5 is photo camera, and still now i don't understand why we must require from him high level video functionality? If you will see the results and delete from them video results and cost effective (!!! its a top professional camera !!!), you will get results about 95-96, which will be first time in camera testing history at dpreview... Again, for what we must require from D5 video functions if we can buy any 6 times cheaper camera and do video much better then any DSLR! But D5 has one unbelievable weakness - not good DR in shadows when you will processing the files, D4 had not it, D750 and any other Nikns also have not it... I am sure, in D5s this problem will be corrected, as well as, many other current problems...

I feel if this was a Canon DPR would have put a more hefty toll on the gold award because of the disappointing DR at base iso. Seriously, be more consistent. The D5 holds the record of the worst base DR of any honourable mention camera with a current sensor. This is the flagship for God's sake.

Thanks for your feedback. We might have been, had the camera not had the world's best AF system, bar none. You could say the same about the utter failure of the 1D X II's iTR subject tracking system (no one in the office would even enable that mode on any Canon DSLR because of the unreliability, yet almost solely rely on it with a D5), but we chose not to make that the focus of that review.

Does that make sense? Still, I understand your concern, and will continue to try and strive for consistency.

@Rishi Sanyal Thank you Rishi. I admire your team work, that it why I actually get involved in striking an opinion. While 3D tracking is a great advance yet not having such a great feature does not cripple a camera so much. The disappointing D5 DR at base ISO is more of a performance hole and a true concern, especially for the flagship camera and when better DR is an established performance for any current sensor. This is especially mind boggling as coming from your team review that has always put such a relevance to this, and now easily dismissed. It seems the DR infatuation is being replaced by 3D tracking infatuation?

Now correct me if I'm wrong but such team sports as soccer would be a bread and butter use for a sports and action camera. And it doesn't sound to me like a system that can (almost) solely be relied on.

So who is right? You or Richard or is there a difference between the D5 and D500 AF systems?

Put it another way, did Nikon dumb down the AF in the D500 or is the subject tracking less reliable than you give it credit for ?

You speak as though Richard and I don't sit 2 ft from one another in the office :)

The D500's AF system is not the same as the D5. The latter has dedicated processing for AF tracking, so I wouldn't be surprised if the D500 didn't quite perform on the level of the D5.

And yet, the D500 is far, far ahead of any other camera when it comes to subject tracking accuracy, allowing you to just 'focus-and-recompose' with 3D Tracking as opposed to selecting your own AF point.

That said, high speed sports will lose the subject from time to time, even with the D5. But you just re-initiate and hope that time it sticks.

You might say 'well why would I use a system that misses from time to time?' Fair point, absolutely fair point. But that's precisely where we draw the line with iTR: iTR fails so frequently, that you won't use it. 3D Tracking even on the D500 fails so infrequently, that you'll still mostly use it, but revert to single point when necessary.

@armandino - thanks for the kind comments, but it's not a matter of a 'fad'. We've been 'fans' of photography-accelerating technologies for some time now.

That includes both DR (ISO-invariance) and subject tracking. Both of those, along with other things like low light performance, ergonomics, speed, etc., are all important.

We spent quite some time pointing out the D5's deficiency in DR (we published an article titled 'Nikon D5 has lowest base ISO dynamic range of any current FF Nikon DSLR' - I don't know how harsher you get than that.

Consider we never published an article that says 'Canon DSLRs have the worse subject tracking of any comparable camera from Nikon' - despite that statement being largely true.

So, I think you can just chalk up the 'DR infatuation' to caricaturization by Canon Rumors/Canon fanboys, if I were to be entirely frank.

I didn’t think that you sat a million miles away from each other that’s why I had some difficulty reconciling your comments with Richard’s comments.

Richard did state that in certain situations, the D500’s subject tracking was distracted too often to be depended on. He gave examples of when it did and didn't work and I found his comments informative. It still seems at odds with your view that 3D Tracking fails so infrequently, that you'll still mostly use it but that's your judgement.

That’s interesting that the D500 AF is slightly degraded over the D5. I haven't seen any other reviewers conclude that (a scoop by DPReview perhaps) but it does make sense in the context of the price differential between the two cameras.

Nikon’s statement that “the D500 incorporates the same powerful 153-point AF system as the D5” could be seen as stretching the truth a bit (but more likely is clever marketing on their part).

Richard and I are actually entirely in agreement over the utility of the D500's 3D Tracking relative to all other systems. I'll ask him to weigh in directly, but this is an example of how experience largely affects reviews. Richard's general experience was that 3D Tracking was incredibly effective, but you're referring to the section of the review that specifically looked at soccer shot at nighttime - possibly the most stressful AF setup ever imaginable by the standards of modern cameras.

Hence, the seeming disconnect. Even a D5 would be distracted from time to time under those circumstances, and it's the reference benchmark when it comes to AF subject tracking.

@Rishi Sanyal not really, sorry contradicting you. Amazing subject tracking does not make up for a deficiency. Especially when the deficiency puts the sensor noticeably behind any competition, and cripples the state of the art most expensive body which is stuck with it 2 to 4 years from now. Yes, your team largely presented the issue, but to me it is not sufficiently reflected in the final score. Canon camera scores have been consistently heavily penalized by the lack of base DR, the D5 in my opinion should be even more given the above considerations.

We don't just make things up and 'heavily penalize' a camera just because it has lower dynamic range. We have an actual scoring system with many, many parameters which then calculates a final score.

What amazing subject tracking/non-jumpy AF does is increase the AF portion of the scoring, so that both cameras ended up scoring similarly. Remember the D5 also has better low light IQ (especially JPEG) performance, so this combined with the AF benefits ended up rounding out the score and leveling the disadvantages with respect to base ISO DR and somewhat lackluster video.

The review of the D500 stated that “in circumstances where there is a clear subject, well isolated from the background, the D500's autofocus and tracking is hugely impressive.” This extended to sports where the subject was fast moving such as skateboarding and motorsport, noting that “these events featured a single subject that's fairly distinct from its background, both in terms of depth and color.”

Other examples such as “polo and soccer proved more challenging for 3D Tracking. With multiple similarly-attired subjects we (DPReview) found that, while generally very good, the camera could be distracted too often to be depended on.”

So what did I take from that. Hugely impressive for isolated subjects regardless of speed but more limited application in situations with multiple similarly-attired subjects such as team sports.

@Nikonmaniac0620I have limited experience with Nikon AF, and best AF is an asset. To me the lack of base ISO DR is deal-breaker. Canon AF might not possibly be as good for keeping the subject locket, but it is still amazing and it will work well for all uses. Better base DR, 4K implementation, dual pixel AF, and noticeably faster fps, I think the Canon is a more all rounded camera, this most desirable for most professional use. At the end of the day is what you take at home as image is what matters, Nikon AF would rarely get the frame that Canon cannot, yet Canon will likely take home frames that Nikon cannot, thanks to the above mentioned features.

Base DR is still better than the D3s. The key is that where it is maximal you usually have enough headroom and it's seldom an issue. Where you suffer most from lack of DR is higher ISO and that is where this camera is so far in my experienceunsurpassed. better base DR would, of course, be great but if conditions allow lots of shooting at Base ISO then this is not the target market for the D5. If there is a choice I would rather have the better DR above 1600 ISO where you are getting into 5 - 7 stops rather than when you already have in excess of 10.

@Vince PI agree with your observations as sports and low light event shooter. This get back to my main point that the D5 is NOT as ALL ROUNDED as the 1DXII. Lack of base ISO DR is an issue in weddings (white bride and black groom outfits) and many outdoors contrasty conditions. This is major flaw for a flagship camera that could have been easily avoided considering that the D5 represents the worse base ISO DR on the market even compared to most amateur cameras. Which is shockingly disappointing. I work all the time with a 1DX and an A7RI and low base DR is a big limitations in many shooting conditions.

Don't you think their sensor tests illustrate how the camera will be used? Take a look at their methodology and lenses then use for each camera. I think it answers many questions about the performance of a camera. Obviously the lens is the other major part which affects performance in this regard.

I'm a professional photographer (by that I mean, the majority of my income is made by photography) These camera's are aimed at professionals and are *part* of a camera system (consisting out of bodies/lenses/flashes etc)

not any of my colleagues, or myself will switch brands due to that a camera deliver a 'bit' better results than the other brand. And since about 9 years it's only 'a bit' in this part of the market which makes that difference. So since the D3 you hardly see any 'brand switchers.'

With this taken into account. It's much practical to put the D5 up to it's 'competition' the D4S.

You've got me wrong. I don't spoke about switch brands anytime. Also I consider it false. The camera is not a first thing. Important is a system where you were working. I've worked with 1Dx Mk I a short time (I don't own it) and I can say - first class. I'm just surprised that there is no 1Dx Mk II test, that's all.

I did and their methodology is rather vague. Being a retired engineer I prefer hard numbers and facts not some vague idea of taking photos in a wide variety of conditions. Ultimately I rely on how a photo looks to me because after all I don't have to please anybody but myself.

Automated test procedures (I am a process engineering consultant) for 16-48 hours under similar test conditions with metrics for each lens seems rather more than a "vague idea of taking photos". The variable in their test procedures seems to be more on the ranking they apply, and you can filter all their results just to see the lenses with the best bokeh, or resolution very easily. So the total ranking method is clear there. Most people with an engineering background would not diss a site or source without doing some research-analysis first. It is obvious this site focuses on high end lenses, and in comparisons with other good sources respected by the industry, I have found their results very reliable and helpful.

@Deliveratorgo to D500 Conclusion & Samples, switch Compare mode on, choose 1d Mk IV, look a moment an think about... 1d Mk IV was announced Oct 2009. There are over 6 years of technical development between. A new sensor generation, new technologies.That is the reason why I want to have a comparison - D500 vs 1Dx Mk II and not old flagship 1d Mk IV

You said it is worse in RAW quality. I don't really see that. Comparing the examples, at higher ISOs, where these kinds of cameras live, the D5 is IMHO better in color saturation and tonality, as well as having much finer grained noise, which I find preferable to the 1 DX MkII's or the D4s's. You also said it is worse in features, but said nothing in clarification. I'm wondering what features you had in mind?

This is based on the comparison by dp and dp rating only.I can't judge what is better because I do not know the D5.I leave judgment to specialists - see bar chart.I've used the 1Dx Mk I for few few weeks and I'm surprised that the dp allows a comparison of D5 with the older 1D Mk IV model only.According to this comparison, D5 is better in low ISO, perhaps in the viewfinder and rating and - it is very subjective assessment of dp - in handling.For me is ergonmic & handling by Canon better as by Nikon - no wonder I'm Canon user :-)I have never seen any Nikon camera, which would be better as a Canon (it's very subjective too).Handling is always a personal habit.

I would like a real world experiment of 2 or 3 cameras ( with similar or equal lens ) shooting the same scene at the same time. To see if there is really a big difference in the real world and one camera lags and miss many moments or just things are getting a bit over hyped. For instance could be the D5, D810 and a D750 or canons or even some other brands as sony, fuji, pentax...

I don't understand why the Nikon D5 would receive such a high rating from DP. Looking at the spec sheet from DXO Mark, the D5 is ranked number 8 compared to other Nikon, Sony and Canon bodies in ISO noise performance, way below D4s or Canon1Dx Mrk I. In terms of DR, the D5 is even below Canon 5Ds/r and way below the Canon 80D and most of the Nikon FF bodies. FPS - Nikon never caught up the Canon 1Dx... I'm not trying to be difficult here...I do shoot both Nikon and Canon.

Because its an action camera. It isn't an accident that the camera doesn't have high DR range at low iso. An Engineers working with photographers decided this was the correct compromise. They felt it was more important to have more DR beyond iso 1600. This is a camera for people who are trying to keep the shutter speed at around 1/2000 under stadium lighting. Not for people shooting landscapes at base iso.

On a technical not the older arrangement of having an analogue is o amplifier gives better DR at high iso and lower DR at low iso. This camera has the older analogue amplifier

@Carey Rose - I find your statement about the dynamic range on the D5 somewhat ironic given that almost every review of a Canon body on DPR cites dynamic range as a con. I can't recall any reviewer on this site indicating, "the positives of this camera far outweighed the DR concerns" in regard to a Canon review. What a joke.

Not intended to be a joke, so sorry about that. I would argue, as an example though, that the 5Ds / 5Ds R having comparatively low base ISO dynamic range is indeed a con when you're talking about a 50MP camera that many people would want to use for landscapes that may be very high-contrast.

And besides that, the lack of low ISO DR is at the top of the list of 'cons' on the conclusion page, which is what most people will read first, I assume, before reading through the comments to my very-much personal assessment of the camera's qualities.

In any case, the greatly improved low ISO DR will be something we're paying close attention to when it comes time to score the 1D X Mark II, which is happening soon.

Davinci, the dynamic range of Canon bodies is cited as a con in reviews because it really lags against the competition. The DR of this camera is simply not a good as the best but nowhere as bad as most Canon stuff.

people looking for a camera that can do all in one... there is no such thing exist. manufacturers are not making cameras for your needs. they make them for their profits. established brands like nikon or canon do not offer such camera. maybe underdog manufacturer such as fuji or sony make better all in one product to snatch some more market share

Faulty Nikon D5Firmware will not update & LAN not workingAfter lots of phone calls & promises sill waiting for Nikon to return my calls.The NPS Support - 0800 652 9580 option 3 has just rings out (for the last 3 days )I have sent an email to Nikon UK MDAs soon as I have any news I will post the out come

It's really disappointing that you gave gold medal for a $6500 camera with such a hilariously crappy video features (this touch-to-AF is a joke, 4K crops to APS-C, how disappointing). At the same time the $1500 Sony RX10iii with brilliant video features received silver.

This camera with 'hilariously crappy video features' does exactly what it's meant to do - shoot fast action in focus with no delays - and it does so in an industry-leading manner. That's why it got a Gold. Nothing really funny or disappointing about it.

Daum Potplayer is a video player - doesn't care what devise created the video. View the video through the player; pause at the image you want to grab; open the "Potplayer" menu; select "Video", "Video Capture", then "Save Current Screen Frame As", and choose desired format for saving image.

It still goes clickety clack, clckety clack making it utterly inappropriate for weddings, music, theater or any other event where the noise it would disturb patrons. The continuous shooting is especially disruptive https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H-mX9Ow1DPY.

DXOMark recently showed that the ISO/Noise is still not catching up to the *old* Canon 1DX. So, impressive as the pure numbers seem to be, the truth is that the old D3s or 1DX are still better than the D5.

I'm not sure I understand the comment. I promise you the 50'000 iso photos on the d5 are substantially better than 6400 on the d3, which I guess would be 12800 on the s. If this isn't for you then totally fair enough, I'm sure it's not everyone's cup of tea.

VSCD, u fortunately r correct. My buddy Carlson stopped by with his D5 and we did a soft box test shot of my dog along with using my D3s with the 35mm 1.4 G. Two shots at Iso 200 and two at Iso 1000. We had 4 16x20 printed with a Canon imagePROGRAF. The prints had little difference as Tiff prints, 3Ds was sharper for both, with D5 having more honest reds. Granted, this was a very casual test. All we got out of this was until Nikon chooses to make a larger sensor, the FPS people, sports with quick auto focus/tracking, and those who hold on to a video future are really the only beneficiaries. Flat out barebones,"a true beautiful picture people like us" types, none of the newer features means much at all. But that's just us.

On the other Hand the dynamic Range is better than before, it seems that those two are conflicting specs. Canon always got better ISO than Nikon but was behind Nikon on Base ISO. Now this is even true in the Nikonline itself.

It's not, stop it! This D5 nonsense is getting tired. Look at Bill Claff's site and data, which is more representative. Or test them for yourself. Also remember the D5 has 8-9 more MP than D3s and very much improved AF. Same as 1DX? What?? I've had the D3s and now have the D5. I can assure you, not close. I've played with the 1DXII - that's about the same.

I merely pointed out that while the ISO noise got even better, it did so with more MPs and a better AF system. OK, forget those. Please interpret the link I posted. Your comment don't make sense - sorry. I doubt you even tried a D5, or you wouldn't be posting this nonsense. Move along now..!

Where I move is not your turn, sorry. If you can read you would recognize that I did not use a D5, I mentioned it earlier because I've no problem with that. I posted a link from DXO you most likley didn't read or understand.

The D5 is a great cam, no doubt, but even the link you posted shows no hyping chart. I approximately see 1/2 stop advantage. Wow. You really need it to nail your job? Congrats.

Edit: Your link shows DR vs. ISO, mine referred Noise to ISO. Which is more important for most sportsphotographers.

I thought you used a D5 when you said, "As I used the D3s, but not the D5 until now", meaning you just used it. But I take it to mean you are just now reading reviews I guess. I don't know what is a "hyping chart". I read the DXO review when it came out. Bill Claff's measurements of DR and ISO (read the site) is more meaningful than anything DXO does. Read up on it if you want or not. Why the sarcasm and hate towards the D5??! Again, if you haven't used it, your opinion doesn't count too much. Once you use it, come back again. You are not getting it i you think it's on the same level as the D3S or 1DX. Talk to some sports photogs.

I'm more into Canon, so I won't buy a D5 but I will use one for sure if a colleague will bring one along. They didn't until now. Some of them even use the D3s, because the D4 was no big step forward. I can read charts even without using the hardware, that's the normal way. Information reading *before* buying. Maybe you have to much money or the company is giving you one for the job. Good for you.

I talked to some some sportphotographers,all of them wait or still use the old gear. A body has to earn it's money, you know.

Yes, many still use the D3s and for sure the D4/s because they are still capable and very good cameras. And not everyone has the cash to change to D5 bodies (individuals or photog businesses) right away. But that doesn't mean it's not better or that photographers would not take one over the D3/D4/s if given the choice. Yes, changes are incremental, but for the better. It's the way forward. It's not like a decade ago when changes were quite large. Still, they are better. If it's worth it or not to you is another question, but no need to put any camera down for not living to the hype generated by Internet forums mostly.

Until the D5 I agree with you I still kept the D3s alongside the 4 and then the 4s. Yes they were better cameras overall but the D3s was the go to if I was primarily shooting in low light. At the same ISO I now can't tell the difference at 100% but of course 100% on the D3s is 60% on the D5 so that is why the D5 is well ahead as 60% on the D5 looks much better than 100% on the D3s. The rest means that all things being equal, there are many real world low light situations where the D5 will bring home the bacon where the D3s couldn't and it is finally being recycled.

I did read the DxO report, and I did say above that, "I've played with the 1DXII - that's about the same.". By "played" I mean I tested them both at the track and in other situations. The 1DXII wasn't the point - you were saying that the D5 is not better than the 1DX and D3s. No need to rehash all that. Regarding the 1DXII, I liked it, but I liked the D5 more. The differences are small, and nobody is shooting landscapes at ISO 100 with these cameras...So great for Canon for having more DR at lower ISO, but I couldn't care less as I don't use it there. The D5 to me had nicer colors/tonality in the higher ISOs. Regarding noise, the DxO method is a joke. They have the D5 as the lowest ranking Nikon in terms of high-ISO noise, which is a total joke. So I take their reports with large grains of salt. Bill Claff like I said is more meaningful. So go get a 1DXII and stop being so angry at the D5 :)

Apparently you like to troll in the forums too. Read the ISO below the graph...Scroll down and look at low light ISO measurement. Looks like the 1DXII gives up some even to the old 1DX so it could have better DR at lower ISO. The D5 chooses the opposite - less noise in low light ISO for reduced DR at lower ISO. Read the whole page under the graph, understand the relationships, and stop trolling.

Comparing the 1DXMII and the D5 using Bill Claff's DxO Mark derived charts, the two cameras are essentially identical from ISO3200-51,200. Given that's where most sports shooters do their work, I'd say the sensors are pretty much equivalent in real-world use.

Nice review, keep up the good work.I do find all the negative comments bizarre. I'm lucky enough to own one of these (D3 packed up) and, genuinely, it's magnificent.I'm rank amateur so can someone please explain why I'd shoot iso 100 when i can shoot between 3000-12000 and get a better quality photo? This seems to be the main criticism. My daughter plays county cricket and I was shooting handheld in overcast conditions with a 300mm. f10, 1/1000 with the iso cranked up. I don't go higher than A4 and I would defy anyone to criticize the quality.Later the same day I was taking photos of my son in a school play. The high iso allowed me to get photos my D3 would never get and the autofocus is staggering, even in the dark. About 99% of the time I don't shoot RAW (quite frankly I've got better things to do with my life) so I want the shot there and then. With a half decent lens even someone as untalented as myself is going to shine.BTW, the battery. 4000 shots so far, same charge. Wow.

You wouldn't shoot ISO 100 if the situation demanded an ISO 2500 exposure. Unless ISO 2500 clipped highlights you didn't want clipped, in which case you could keep your aperture/shutter speed for an appropriate ISO 2500 exposure, but dial the ISO back down to, say, 320, shoot Raw, then do the +3 EV boost in post while protecting the highlights.

But with the D5, you'll have extra noise in the shadows/midtones (relative to having shot ISO 2500) if you do so. With the D810 or D750, you won't.

Rishi, not sure I follow. Properly exposed is properly exposed. You are turning this into an HDR scenario, where one wants to expose for everything. But for action, sports, photo reportage, this doesn't happen all that often, if at all most times. Which is what the D5 is for. "Not a deal breaker, but not ideal" - I have to smile. This is not for landscape photographers. And BTW, you can safely push/pull 1.5 stops without any noise. 3 stops maybe you'll have some noise in shadows as you say, but that's a seriously bad exposure or a scene with some crazy contrast that the highlights would need 3 stops of saving. 1.5 stops is enough for the intended audience of this camera. Yeah, the D810 you can go nuts with in PP. But it's a different camera for a different type of photography. Why can't you guys separate these things? I mean really? Wow..

ghost wind, Rishi actually hit the nail on the head. There are many situations having nothing to do with HDR that benefit from underexposing in order to save highlights... where a D5 or 1Dx would be more ideal over a D810 or 5Dsr. Likewise, pushing 3 stops today isn't eyebrow raising and is but another viable tool in one's real-world post processing arsenal.

Rishi, now you're speaking my language. There is no such thing as "properly exposed". People will often assume something is underexposed, when in fact the light, or lack thereof, actually depicted the light as it actually was. The flip side is that often "properly exposed" per the light meter, is boring, and a bit of a push, etc., can make things pop. It's all a subjective exercise.

I meant properly exposed in terms of what you want to expose for, not what the meter is saying. And a pro using a D5 hopefully knows what he/she is exposing for... I don't see examples from pros complaining about needing 3 more stops when shooting sports or photo reportage - the indented audience for the D5. That was my point...Could we all benefit from more dynamic range? Possibly, but that HDR look can get boring fast. The more interesting photographs (for me at least) have contrast, crushed blacks, etc. Again, you should review this camera for its intended use.

You really need to get the "HDR" stuff out of your head, since the most useful reasons for being able to recover up to 5 stops or so, has absolutely nothing to do with the stereotypical HDR "look". I don't think most D5, 1Dx, etc., are being bought by "pros" shooting sports or reportage; which brings us to another point. These camera aren't "sport" cameras- but rather fast shooting cameras that are used in a myriad of situations that exploit their strengths whether that be sports, action portraiture/life style, industrial use, scientific use, etc.. More DR would definitely help a lot of actual owners/would-be-buyers of these cameras whether those buyers shoot sports/reportage or not.

Look, increased DR is always a good thing. Most genres can take advantage of it, though some will not as I said above, purposely. With that out of the way, let's talk about the D5. While no doubt there are people with money to burn that will buy the D5 to shoot cats, flowers, and their kids' playing soccer (which is fine by me - their money), the fact remains that it's a specialty camera aimed at sports, photo reportage, and wildlife. While the camera CAN indeed be used to shoot anything (this is my belief about most cameras - see my D500 thread (https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4031903), it's not designed so at the pro level, nor priced so at $6500. I very much doubt any pro is buying the D5 for portraiture - let's be honest here. Agencies are in fact buying them for staffers for sports and photo reportage, and less even for the latter due to cost.

I can't get the HDR stuff "out of my head" because underexposing 3 stops and pushing shadows 3 stops is just that - capturing more DR. But semantics out of the way, like I said, I know a few pros, using D4s at the moment, and none is underexposing 3 stops and submitting to their editors to push 3 stops in RAW. 1.5 stops is enough and about as much as anyone I've met or known will do. The D5 is what it is, and it's damn good at it. People want more - a different D5 with more DR at base ISO, more DR in general, more MPs, etc. My point is to stop faulting this camera for what you wish it to be, but give it kudos for what it is.

BTW, you may think my D500 thread is contradictory, but I don't think it is. The D500 is more of a generalists camera in many ways that the D5. Cost, size, etc.

The solders these machines contain is brittle and shocks caused in merely transporting it to your grubby hands reduce its lifespan in any case. IF you google NASA "Tin Whiskers" you will be able to understand the probvlem better than space or inclination provides us with here. However, as the cost of these machines and lenses is doubling exponentially (a600-a6300, Xpro 1-Xpro2 etc) the time has now surely arrived for us to be able to use a camera and its lenses for as long as a film AF cameras circuitry and lenses have lasted BECAUSE RoHS did not then exist.

For us in the UK the RoHS implememted under EU rules is one of the best reasons to decide to leave the EU. I'm not saying its not implemented everywhere now or that I am a luddite, which is OK by me, but unless we regain the right to control what crap we import we are all shafted, basically. Pressure has to be put on China Japan and Taiwanese manufacturers Apple among them to actually produce stuff that lasts. The argument that it will be obsolete next year is nor a reason, but just THE reason why there are now vast supercities in the East, as these countries naturally have taken full advantage of RoHS to excuse the fact their hard drives and cameras and lenses regularly DIE on us. The legislation has exemptions for cars and planes and INDUSTRIAL HDDs like Googles servers, but all of us are trapped into being cheated of our money whilst the landfill problems RoHS causes (all your TV and amplifiers and expensive decks, cartidges etc TOO) are doing the Earth more harm than good.

I do not really understand all the rave for this camera, as I would not understand equally for the 1DXII if it is (and probably is) equally good with slight flavour variations.This camera delivers to me the minimum acceptable to make a reincarnation of the Nikon flagship be still somewhat appealing for an upgrade. Is it a fantastic camera? Of course it is, it is an improvement on the D4s, which was already fantastic.4 years to a cycle to see a bit of an AF expansion and tracking improvement, hardly worth mentioning frame rate increment, and a me too 4K. An incremental iso performance improvement, at the cost of low iso DR. I am honestly disappointed with both Nikon and Canon, with the mirrorless tech catching up faster and 4 year refresh cycles, I was so sure I was going to see something truly interesting from them this year. Let's see next move from Sony now.

It should be about time to see movable LCD screen also on these tools and abandon that silly idea that pros do not need them and have always to bust their knees and backs squatting down and rolling into mud to shot throgh the viewfinder. I'd rather that that video capabilities... even if a frame/crop out of a 4K footage may be usefull from time to time not to miss the action.

Nikon listens to its customers. If there was a large outcry to get those childish flippy screens they'd be there already. There may come a time when even the Pro cameras end up sporting this useless junk but for now I'm happy that Nikon isn't putting them on everything so I don't have to pay for something I won't use. To B Marsh: Useless and unwanted(by the majority of Photographers) features like video, flippy screens, and built-in wi-fi are the reason why you and I have to pay so much for our equipment. Camera manufacturers are trying to cater to the youngsters with all this junk and serious photographers are the ones who have to pay for it.

@WillieGone of the main reason why I shoot mostly with mirrorless is because of the seamless versatility of switching from viewfinder to tilt screen, which opens up a great deal of compositions angles (or allowing the framing quickly without Yoga instructor certification).Note that I have been a pro body and MF shooter for many years. Denying the benefits of the childish floppy screens or denigrating their usefulness for pro use is just a sign of inability of recognizing new opportunities.

I will never understand why the cost has to be sooooo hiiiighhh!!!!?? I love my cameras and would love to own the D5, but the price, even if I can afford it, is just too high!!! Same with the flagship Canon. Is it really necessary? I have been a professional photographer for over 30years. I have had the top Nikon cameras, like the old F2 35mm, FM, N90, D100, D200, D70, Fuji F5pro, D700 and even the D3 which I still have and use, because it is such a great camera, and don't have all that video nonsense. A photographers camera should only have the ability to take pictures, not movies!!! Get a video for that. Is this one of the reasons the camera's are so expensive? Anyway, to each his own I suppose, but I'm old school, just give me a camera that takes still pictures and I'd be satisfied. Anyone else out there like this? Peace.

Indeed they can easily sell these cameras for much less money, but because there's enough people willing to pay the same money (like Leica's) to keep them happy and to maintain these 'pro' cameras pricing artificially 'high'......

B Marsh... of course the price isn't "necessary". It isn't necessary that great sporting cars cost over $250,000 US, but what does that have to do with conducting business at a price point that sells product; whether it be the flagship, or psychologically encouraging prospective buyers to buy the next model down?

For me, it doesn't make sense (especially business sense) to have a "photographers" camera without video capability in a flagship form factor. A working man (or woman's) camera is about maximizing capability and video is useful and used by many photographers including myself. Having video capability in my DSLRS is what's kept me from having to lug around a dedicated video camera.

They do have cameras like the F6 for those who are all 'nostalgic-purist' over photography, as opposed to using the camera as a tool to get a job done. Video permeates youtube, vine, etc.. and is a powerful tool; instrumental in getting a lot of photographers paid... more. ;)

Manufacturers are not there to make you happy. They are there to make profits for shareholders. And if they need to do that by offering something that sells their cameras with maximum profit, then they do it so. And fans can think that it is done by manufacturers that customers would be happy.

The camera prices are priced optimally so that you ship produced cameras and you get maximum profit from them. That means, if you sell 20% less but you get 30% higher profit per camera, then you don't care what that 20% missing sales is there as you are anyways 10% winning side. Only Jews does that it is better to sell 300-400% times more with just 2-5% profit, as you will control the markets in long run and yet you will make a lot of profit, even when it is just with small marginals.

dpreview's scoring system has to be the dumbest ever. Ratings are relative to "other cameras in the category" and also within the current generation. What category? What generation? Is this camera better or worse than the D750? Or the D610? (Or even the RX10 or whatever other random cameras have comparable ratings?) One of the reasons people like DxO's scores (flawed as they may be) is that a better score is a better score. A lens released two years ago isn't graded on a curve. Personally, I preferred "highly recommended" etc. because it wasn't precise enough to allow you to ignore the review itself.

That is one nice camera. I would love to see that AF tracking capabilities in a non pro body, but I must confess, that this is obviously wishfull thinking (at least until the next iterations). That is especially try for the brand I am invested in (Canon), which can not match that tracking performance in their pro bodys yet.

Toni. There is a good likelihood (based on Nikon's digital model history) that they will launch a “mini-D5”, just as the D700 was a mini-D3 and the DF was a mini-D4, sharing a sensor, and who knows, possibly even the AF module.

Toni, as someone who switched from Canon to Nikon, I can safely tell you that despite Nikon's impressive subject tracking capability, Canon isn't that far behind, and unless you happen to be shooting very demanding situations, the results aren't going to be that different. One thing Canon beats Nikon absolutely cold however, is in the live view AF. All their Dual Pixel AF DSLR bodies are excellent, focusing more or less at the same speed and accuracy as a mirrorless CDAF system. Nikon's live view is embarrassingly slow and inaccurate in comparison. I don't rely on live view for my professional shooting, but it allows me more creative options for high and low angle shots with the articulating LCD screen.

Anyone who reads and follows this site knows how DPR is relentless in the bashing of Canon's "low DR"This review gives me the giggles in how DPR get around the fact that the D5 has the same low ISO DR as the Canon 6D.NOW low DR is not as important as high ISO DR and this is what really matters on a 6000 dollar camera.I quote "If the brand new Nikon-made 20 MP flagship sensor doesn't deliver the DR you need, don't worry: you can always buy the two year old 36 MP Sony-made sensor in the D810"

I'm sure everyone would wish that the low iso dynamic range of the D5 is as good as other Nikon line up. But, i'm also very sure nikon know what they are doing here to chose high iso performance over low iso DR. It seems like with today's sensor technology, there are still compromise that we have to live with for a while, it's such ashame. However, consider the application of the camera (all about speed), this could be the right decision for the targeted user. If speed don't matter in the type of photo that a person do, then getting this camera is a waste.

@Alex VelascoRave as much as you like, yesterday I took this random picture with my A7RII:http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/7479542344/photos/3461309/dsc00780and the D5 would have sucked at it. I take pictures every day that the D5 would suck at.Facts are fact. Stop being a fanboy. Nobody questions how good the D5 is good is in virtually everything. Yet not acknowledging some basic limitations is childish.As a fact the days of such cameras are over for anyone bur hardcore sport photographers. I shot a full wedding last weekend with a 1Dx and a A7RII side by side and 1% of the pictures submitted were from the 1DX. If I had a D5 instead of the 1DX odds are it would have been more or less the same ratio.

@armandino: I have the A7rii, too, but I know its limits. It is perfect for landscape pictures, for example, but that's not the target market for the D5. If you are as smart as you try to imply, you should know that. The A7rii performance is nowhere close in responsiveness and speed to the D4s I used a few times for weddings, too. Use the right tool for the right job. Knowing the performance a 1dx delivers, my feeling is you need some practice mastering it?

@RamboTan@HFLMOh boy, the toughest part seems to convey opinions, here. I never implied that the A7RII competes with the D5. I have only been bringing up the D5 Achilles' heel. I have owned all Canon 1D series so far so I do appreciate the qualities of a pro body.However, it is a fact that if the D5 construction, speed, and extreme iso performance, are not needed, the A7RII is likely to surpass the D5, because of the IQ, IBIS, EVF, light weight, silent shutter, tilt screen, wifi, discreteness. That is why I generally have the A7RII in my bag with the 1DX, which I have as a backup for the toughest situations, but, honestly, unless I am shooting sports, it stays in the bag.HFLM, maybe you need to master the A7RII capabilities instead? A7RII is nowhere close in responsiveness as you say, however it is is plenty responsive for most situations. While Nikon/Canon pro bodies, honestly, it is all they have to offer, the A7RII has all the above to work more creatively and less intrusively.

armandino Respectfully: Did you mistakenly choose the wrong "random picture with my A7RII", or do you not understand the concept of dynamic range? That is not a high-dynamic range photo, I can get results like that from my iPhone 4s.

@Alex VelascoOf course you can push 4 stops with your iPhone!Thank you for your compliment! I think a great HRD images looks best if not up on your face, but subtle. I guess I succeed :-)Btw with the D5 you probably would have grain the size of tennis balls doing the same.

@Lea5ISO variance worse than any other current sensor, even the 80D. If you do not care that is fine, but you would expect more from the flagship. ISO invariance is one more feature that can make the difference in many situations. But you probably do not even know what I am talking about. Inform yourself before making arrogance fireworks.

@zero sectorOne of the main objectives of ISO invariance is to shoot a low ISO and to apply a strong nonlinear tonal curve in post with (non linear and local amplification rather than a uniform and global amplification via ISO number) :1) Much increased DR2) Lower noise in highlights and midtones as they are amplified to a lesser degree.This is huge for lowlight photography. Besides, these machines are built and marketed for all situations.

For instance, assume you have a scene you are going to shoot at ISO 3K. Instead you can shoot it at ISO 100 or, to say 400, depending on the circumstances. When applying a tonal curve and local adjustments only the shadow and darker midtones will see a ISO 3K signal boost, while the brighter areas will have a 100-1000 ISO noise range, and you are protecting your highlights.

Suddenly Canonista's are keen on DXO and ISO invariance? If you shoot at fixed ISO 400 and use that as your base for ISO invariance then the D5 will perform admirably and allow you to adjust for a couple of stops of overexposure instead of only allowing for under exposure.

@Tonio Leewardare you referring to me? I always look at the DXO data. Do not always agree on the score or their point of view, but data is data. I integrated in my Canon system a A7RII because of the Canon sensor limitations.I think you guys are missing the point: there is nothing wrong with the D5 sensor, in terms of DR and iso invariance, FOR AN AVERAGE CAMERA. We are talking of Nikon latest flagship, and we are all entitled to adequate criticisms to what is supposed to be the latest best, stop being defensive in front of the facts: mediocre ISO invariance, in which regard even the D3300 puts the D5 to shame.

@Lea5"Only pixelpeepers, brickwallshooters and gearheads look at DXO. Professionals do not care about measurebating, they are generating money with their tools." In all other professions, people aim for the best tools for the job. Or the best tools for the money. But a photographer who cares about the performance of his tools is "a measurebating gearhead amateur"? You make less than zero sense.

@Tonio Loewald"ISO invariance is, in essence, "expose to the left"". Is a very superficial way of looking at the ISO invariance potential, and its most trivial use. I actually always disliked the idea in principle because it makes sloppy photographers and poor pictures, acceptable only when contrasts really push you to doing that.The huge benefit of ISO invariance resides in the fact that you can shoot at very low ISO in any conditions, adjusting for proper exposure in post. This is EXTREMELY useful because you can apply the desired exposure non-linearly and locally rather than uniformly and globally. You basically are in control of the applied gain, just like in RAW you are in control of the image possessing vs jpg. ISO invariance gives even more control to the photographer as it can be applied as desired after the fact.This is huge ESPECIALLY for low light photography and not when BASE ISO is the correct exposure. So it is in my opinion a BIG misstep for a camera for low light.

"and its most trivial use" — actually expose to the left is more versatile than ISO invariance. E.g. because the Nikon D5 is only ISO invariant beyond 800 you can expose to the left based on your knowledge of the sensor. (AFAIK that's what the D5 does for you anyway, i.e. it plays games with sensor output below ISO 800, and beyond that it just shoots at ISO 800, so you lose 1.5 stops of DR at base ISO, but gain 1 stop of DR above ISO800. So you don't need to know any of this, just as long as you ignore the ETTR nutjobs)

Nikon has announced more details of firmware in development for the Z6 and Z7. As previously reported, firmware is being planned that will add Eye-detection AF, CFexpress support and Raw video over HDMI.

Latest in-depth reviews

The Canon G5 X Mark II earns a Silver Award with its very good image quality, flexibility and the overall engaging experience of using the camera. However, if you need the very best in autofocus and video, other options may suit you better. Find out all the details in our full G5 X II review.

360 photos and video can be very useful for certain applications (as well as having fun). The Vuze+ is an affordable 360 camera that supports both 2D and 3D (stereo vision) capture, and might be the best option for someone wanting to experiment with the 360 format.

The Mikme Pocket is a portable wireless mic with particular appeal to smartphone users looking to up their game and improve the quality of recorded audio without the cost or complexity or traditional equipment.

The 90D is essentially the DSLR version of the EOS M6 Mark II mirrorless camera that was introduced alongside it. Like the M6 II, it features a 32MP sensor, Dual Pixel AF, fast burst shooting and 4K/30p video capture. It will be available mid-September.

Latest buying guides

If you want a compact camera that produces great quality photos without the hassle of changing lenses, there are plenty of choices available for every budget. Read on to find out which portable enthusiast compacts are our favorites.

Whether you're hitting the beach in the Northern Hemisphere or the ski slopes in the Southern, a rugged compact camera makes a great companion. In this buying guide we've taken a look at nine current models and chosen our favorites.

What's the best camera for under $500? These entry level cameras should be easy to use, offer good image quality and easily connect with a smartphone for sharing. In this buying guide we've rounded up all the current interchangeable lens cameras costing less than $500 and recommended the best.

If you're looking for a high-quality camera, you don't need to spend a ton of cash, nor do you need to buy the latest and greatest new product on the market. In our latest buying guide we've selected some cameras that while they're a bit older, still offer a lot of bang for the buck.

Whether you're new to the Micro Four Thirds system or a seasoned veteran, there are plenty of lenses available for you. We've used pretty much all of them, and in this guide we're giving your our recommendations for the best MFT lenses for various situations.

Blackmagic has announced an update to Blackmagic RAW that adds support, via plugins, to Adobe Premiere Pro and Avid Media Composer. Blackmagic also announced a pair of Video Assist 12G monitor-recorders with brighter HDR displays, USB-C recording and more.

Sony has announced the impending arrival of its next-generation video camera system, the FX9. The full-frame E-mount system is set to be released later this year with a 16-35mm E-mount lens to follow in spring 2020.

The Canon G5 X Mark II earns a Silver Award with its very good image quality, flexibility and the overall engaging experience of using the camera. However, if you need the very best in autofocus and video, other options may suit you better. Find out all the details in our full G5 X II review.

The Fujifilm X-A7 is the newest addition to the company's X-series lineup. Despite its relatively low price of $700 (with lens), Fujifilm didn't skimp on features. Click through to find out what you need to know about the X-A7.

The entry-level Fujifilm X-A7 improves upon many of its predecessor's weak points, including a zippier processor, an upgraded user experience and 4K/30p video capture. It goes on sale October 24th for $700 with a 15-45mm F3.5-5.6 kit lens.

Robert Frank's unconventional approach to photography and filmmaking defied generational constraints and inspired some of the most influential artists of the 20th century. He passed away today at age 94.

All three devices offer a standard 12MP camera plus, for the first time on an iPhone, an ultra-wide 13mm camera module. The 11 Pro and 11 Pro Max also retain the telephoto camera of previous generations.

Phase One's new XT camera system incorporates the company's IQ4 series of digital backs with up to 151MP of resolution and marries them to a line of Rodenstock lenses using the new XT camera body. The result is an impressively small package for one of the largest image sensors currently on the market - take a closer look here.

Phase One has announced its new XT camera system, which includes an IQ4 digital back, body (made up of a shutter release button and two dials) and a trio of Rodenstock lenses. The company is marketing the XT as a 'travel-friendly' product for landscape photographers.